Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poldevaart (EP 1308384) in view of Baross et al (WO 2006/037964). With respect to claims 1-3, 5, Poldevaart discloses the basic claimed structure including an apparatus for transferring mechanical 4 and energy conduit connections 35, 36, 39, 40 in a mooring from a first 7 to a second vessel 8 including a fluid transfer pipe 35, 36, 39, 40. Not disclosed by Poldevaart is the particular keyed pathway coupling connection including a second energy conduit in the form of an electrical cable. Baross et al teach a keyed pathway coupling connection 216, 218 (note also Figures 10-12) including a second energy conduit in the form of an electrical cable (note Figure 9; conduits/cables 66, 68). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Poldevaart with a keyed pathway coupling connection including a second energy conduit in the form of an electrical cable as taught by Baross et al with a high likelihood of success for improved energy transfer and improved ease of connection and disconnection. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the design of multimillion dollar offshore marine systems would have many years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with various energy connection systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious. Note also that the use of “may” in the claims does not specifically claim the limitations and need not be shown by the combination.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poldevaart (EP 1308384) in view of Baross et al (WO 2006/037964), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roddier et al (US 8692401). With respect to claim 4, not disclosed by Poldevaart are wind turbines. Roddier et al teach multiple wind turbines (Figure 24). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Poldevaart with multiple connected wind turbines as taught by Roddier et al with a high likelihood of success for improved energy farming. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the design of multimillion dollar offshore marine systems would have many years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with various marine offshore systems and would have found the combination to include wind turbines to have been obvious.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, the use of “may” (lines 11, 13) is indefinite.
Claims 6-9 and 12 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coppens (US 2010/0326667) teaches a coupling device in a marine structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights